Just Stop Oil activists jailed for throwing soup over Van Gogh’s Sunflowers
Just Stop Oil activists jailed for throwing soup over Van Gogh’s Sunflowers
Three individuals targeted National Gallery paintings an hour after Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland were jailed for similar attack in 2022
This was the one soup-throwing which did any damage at all; in this case to the frame.
The penalty is appreciably worse than for minor violent attacks.
You're viewing a single thread.
I said this before when JSO used "washable" paint on Stonehenge: they are punching in the wrong direction. Billionaires don't care about human life, so why would they care about a painting?
These works belong to humanity, and by defacing them, you aren't winning converts—you're just pissing people off. Go vandalize something that belongs to the billionaires making things worse for the rest of us; unless you can win people to your cause, you're going to remain small-time vandals that get outsized prison sentences and unflattering media coverage.
Unless you can demonstrate an actual harm that these people are doing to the cause, I am going to give them my support for doing SOMETHING. If it moves the needle a millionth of a percent in the right direction, tear down all the art galleries. We only have one planet.
Many of these cases have had jury nullification, which means a jury of twelve people who have been vetted to remove bias, all unanimously agreed to say "fuck you" to the legal system rather than lock up JSO activists.
That tells me that there is considerable public support for them, whatever you say to the contrary.
Edit: Here's a study about the actual problems facing the climate movement. Support isn't the issue:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-024-01925-3
Abstract:
Mitigating climate change necessitates global cooperation, yet global data on individuals' willingness to act remain scarce. In this study, we conducted a representative survey across 125 countries, interviewing nearly 130,000 individuals. Our findings reveal widespread support for climate action. Notably, 69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute 1% of their personal income, 86% endorse pro-climate social norms and 89% demand intensified political action. Countries facing heightened vulnerability to climate change show a particularly high willingness to contribute. Despite these encouraging statistics, we document that the world is in a state of pluralistic ignorance, wherein individuals around the globe systematically underestimate the willingness of their fellow citizens to act. This perception gap, combined with individuals showing conditionally cooperative behaviour, poses challenges to further climate action. Therefore, raising awareness about the broad global support for climate action becomes critically important in promoting a unified response to climate change. Global support and cooperation are necessary for successful climate action. Large-scale representative survey results show that most of the population around the world is willing to support climate action, while a perception gap exists regarding other citizens' intention to act.
The abstract of that paper says that the real problem is people's lack of awareness of how incredibly high the support for climate action is, because that informs how likely they are to act.
In which case, all this hand-wringing about which actions increase or decrease support is a red herring, because the support is not actually in danger.
I would suggest that the real problem is people who handwring about the support creating the perception that the cause is less popular than it is.
The worse part is that they started with a plain wrong argument, this is not to attract the attention of billionaires, altough it can too. This is to catch the attention of everyone, to create a higher mass that is needed to change something, and tbh they are making more people aware of the issues, even if they get some stupid arguments against them when they are really doing no real harm as far as im aware.
Okay, and who hasn't heard of climate change by now? Who has been living under a rock that doesn't know that Big Oil is bad?
"Create a higher mass," ffs... You sound like a Christian justifying buying those "He Gets Us" Superbowl ads, as if nobody in the US has heard of Jesus before.
And no real harm? I guess we can just destroy history and artifacts, because who needs to learn from that shit amirite?
What's the point of preserving artifacts if there's no one to look at them anymore?
What's the point of destroying artifacts if it doesn't accomplish your goals?
https://web.sas.upenn.edu/pcssm/commentary/public-disapproval-of-disruptive-climate-change-protests/
Which artifact was damaged? Because even in your link the article says:
"The New York Times’ ran an article titled “Climate Activists Throw Mashed Potatoes on Monet Painting,” further describing it in the subtitle as “the latest attack on widely admired art.” However, it is not until the fifth paragraph that the article notes that “the food did not cause any damage to the piece.” This raises the question, does the public differentiate between “damaging pieces of art” and “pretending to damage pieces of art” in their views of these non-violent, disruptive protests?
Also comparing having to make people understand the degree of damage we get from climate change vs christianity, its just an amazing analogy lol, what can i even say after that?. Have a nice day, i think you really need it.
However, it is not until the fifth paragraph that the article notes that “the food did not cause any damage to the piece.” This raises the question, does the public differentiate between “damaging pieces of art” and “pretending to damage pieces of art” in their views of these non-violent, disruptive protests?
That's the thing. Did they know for a fact that what they did was not going to cause damage. I suspect they didn't care, and the fact that they didn't cause damage is likely in spite of their tactics.
As for my analogy, like all analogies, it is imperfect. The point is that the effort to "inform people" isn't enough anymore. Virtually everyone has heard the message that Big Oil is bad and climate change is happening; whether they choose to accept it is a different matter, and on that front JSO is making no headway, as evidenced by that study.
People need a goal and a path to get there, and defacing public art isn't something average people will follow.
Also, thank you for the well-wishes. I hope you have a lovely day, too.
There’s people (and children, who don’t need this bullshit) standing right there.
But it’s not moving the needle, not at all ! It’s only fuelling antipathy towards environmental activism, and you can bet your favourite thing rightwingers are using that to pull centrists into their side.
I've given some pretty compelling evidence that public support for these activists is extremely high, and in response you have... some flatulence.
Here, I'll respond in the way you did:
But it is moving the needle, it totally is!
See? I can say things too.
These people didn't get a jury nullification, though, so clearly that doesn't apply here. I don't have a problem with all of their actions, just these that cause permanent or potentially permanent harm to historical artifacts.
And I disagree with your premise that history and its artifacts are a worthy sacrifice for any cause; that's how we get ignorant people and despots who weaponize that ignorance.
Doing "something" doesn't mean it's effective or worthwhile. I could throw soup on a painting, or I could spray paint a billionaire's mansion. I could paint Stonehenge, or I could sue the polluters. I could deface historical artifacts, or I could lobby a politician.
What they did is so dumb, and while I appreciate people who want to see anything done, making the news isn't some kind of event that will realistically "move the needle" and suddenly open the eyes of the ignorant.
I could throw soup on a painting,
Yes, evidently they managed to do it
or I could spray paint a billionaire's mansion.
You'd get arrested before ever reaching the wall.
I could paint Stonehenge,
Yes, evidently
or I could sue the polluters.
In the court the polluters have stacked themselves? Let me know how that goes. The polluters have more money and lawyers than you.
The people deciding the laws are bought.
I could deface historical artifacts,
Yes
or I could lobby a politician.
What with all the millions you just have laying around? Lol get real.
I suggest you introspect as to why the potential (or even actual) damage of artifacts makes you so angry. Why don't all the artifacts that were lost to time make you angry as well? I understand feeling disappointed if one ever gets destroyed, but you seem much more agitated than that. That anger can be easily manipulated by your environment to make you do things against your self interest.
I suggest you introspect as to why the potential (or even actual) damage of artifacts makes you so angry.
I told you why. It's not my fault you refuse to read.
Why don't all the artifacts that were lost to time make you angry as well?
Because "time" isn't a conscious agent.
That anger can be easily manipulated by your environment to make you do things against your self interest.
You mean like throwing soup on a painting, accomplishing nothing, and getting a prison sentence? Lol
Edit: clarified a word.
Even a single nullification is incredibly rare, but it's happening enough that the government is making efforts to stamp out discussion of jury nullification.
We all know what the Streisand Effect is, so the logical result here is that more and more people will hear about the practice, more people will do it, and the public and those in power will get the message - you can't weaponise the legal system against us anymore.
It might even get to the point that they're afraid to prosecute because they don't want more nullifications to happen.
Then what? What do the people in power do when they discover that they can no do that? They start to be afraid of what else people might nullify. What about actual violent actions, would people get a free pass then? How willing would they be to throw the cops against people when those people are starting to wake up to the fact that we outnumber them, and we don't have to convict people if we don't want to?
When they're afraid of that, you might start to see action. Or you might see more violent repression, at which point who knows what the next step will be, but it's better than sitting around waiting for committees to decide that action must be taken which will then be ignored by those in power.
And we get ignorant people and despots because people in power use propaganda to miseducate the public, not because art galleries close.
We all know what the Streisand Effect is, so the logical result here is that more and more people will hear about the practice, more people will do it, and the public and those in power will get the message - you can't weaponise the legal system against us anymore.
I know what it is, but I do not agree that it's the logical result, and we do not know for a fact that it will cause people to become activists as a result. What you're essentially saying is that the governments will clamp down harder and harder, and The Free People will Unionize™! Meanwhile, we have contemporary and historical examples where that didn't happen.
So I reject your following premises as wishful thinking. The people in power aren't scared of nullified juries, because judges can override juries, and the powers that be have the additional capability to use extrajudicial tactics while claiming plausible deniability in the public square.
I understand and appreciate people's desire to revolt—movies and books have made it appear very romantic—but activists are not going to change the world without the power of the governments. They would be better served by running for office rather than running from the State.
Here's one study Pennsylvania University https://web.sas.upenn.edu/pcssm/commentary/public-disapproval-of-disruptive-climate-change-protests/
Do with it what you will.
Is there any data in here to suggest what the actual effect is on level of support, rather than people self-reporting their change in level of support?
Because here's one reading of the data, which I think is entirely reasonable:
-
The people who report "no effect" on their support, which at 40% is the largest single group, already support efforts to address climate change, and this makes no difference to them.
-
The people who report a decrease, great or otherwise, of their support, are just conservatives who know that the talking point is "this action decreases support" and so they're answering in a way that supports that narrative. In reality, these people were already opposed to any meaningful action in the first place, and this didn't change their actual level of support.
Without further analysis, this survey doesn't say much. Even the questions dishonestly imply that actual damage is being done to art, when that generally isn't the case.
Again, that survey comes up against a tide of jury nullifications, which would indicate a very strong material support for these activists and the cause they represent. The courts are trying to penalise people for mentioning climate change in their defense, which has got to blow back in their faces eventually. In fact these court cases may be an important part of swinging public sentiment against the government and towards radical action to change things.
-
Who gives a fuck about "disapproval?" "Disapproval" is entirely irrelevant -- actually no, more than that: "disapproval" is what reactionaries do when they can't ignore you anymore, which is a sign that you're winning.
Change like this doesn't happen because the Powers that Be "approve" of the protestors. Change like this happens because the protestors have caused enough disruption to force the Powers that Be to capitulate.
Those people who disapprove vote. They absolutely matter, and pretending they don't is why JSO will continue to lose.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Do you think the Civil Rights Movement succeeded because White Moderates "voted" in favor of it?
No, the Civil Rights Movement succeeded because the massive disruptions it caused made it clear that trying to preserve the white supremacist status quo would no longer be possible, and that the only alternative to negotiating concessions to the likes of MLK and the NAACP would be having to deal with the likes of Malcolm X instead.
Similarly, Just Stop Oil's path to victory has absolutely fuck-all to do with popular "approval" of their tactics, but everything to do with becoming so disruptive that it becomes worth it to capitulate to their demands to make the protests stop. Just Stop Oil is trying to be the Malcolm X of the climate movement. They don't want your approval, and they don't need your approval.
Spamming the false notion that approval matters all over the thread is nothing but the reactionary pearl-clutching of a concern troll.
Do you think the Civil Rights Movement succeeded because White Moderates "voted" in favor of it?
I hate to tell you this but that’s literally what happened.
Okay, let me be clearer: they didn't vote to "approve" of the protestors. They voted to accede to the protestors demands even though they fucking hated MLK, because they had no choice.
Do you think the Civil Rights Movement succeeded because White Moderates "voted" in favor of it?
It would not have succeeded otherwise, since they were the ones in power.
Similarly, Just Stop Oil's path to victory has absolutely fuck-all to do with popular "approval" of their tactics, but everything to do with becoming so disruptive that it becomes worth it to capitulate to their demands to make the protests stop.
And look how well that's working out: https://web.sas.upenn.edu/pcssm/commentary/public-disapproval-of-disruptive-climate-change-protests/
Spamming the false notion that approval matters all over the thread is nothing but the reactionary pearl-clutching of a concern troll.
Sounds like somebody is butthurt that they realize they don't actually have a good defense other than nihilism. Refute my points, if you have a problem, but ad hominem attacks aren't a valid justification why my points are invalid.
What part of your study is measuring an irrelevant thing do you not fucking understand?
Who gives a fuck about "disapproval?" "Disapproval" is entirely irrelevant
If you’re trying to affect public opinion, it’s extremely relevant.
Change like this happens because the protestors have caused enough disruption to force the Powers that Be to capitulate.
Throwing soup on art. Listen to yourself. The Powers that Be are not affected one iota. In fact, as the study above has made clear, these twits have helped them.
If you’re trying to affect public opinion,
Yeah, and they're not.
Throwing soup on art.
They did no such thing! They threw soup on glass, harmlessly.
Why are you lying about both their motives and their actions?
Unless you can demonstrate an actual harm that these people are doing
The actual harm that people are doing is making the fight against big oil look like it’s being done by clueless morons. The proof is all the comments saying this very thing.
Yes, yes, they did something, and kudos there but not all press is good press.
No, don't just tell me the harm you reckon is happening, demonstrate it.
You want to claim some harm is happening, then show your working.
This isn't to trigger billionaires. It's to trigger EVERYONE ELSE.
To do what, exactly? Become activist? Because regular people aren't going to see this and go, "Hmm, yes. I think I'd like to go pour gasoline on the Constitution."
If that's their plan, it seems to me they're effectively holding regular people hostage, while the billionaires causing the problems roam free and careless. "We're gonna keep breaking shit until you all do what we want!"
Regular people's power comes from voting and organizing, but you have to convince not just the activists like yourself but the moderates and centrists that your cause is worthy of giving up their status quo.
It’s triggering them. To think environmental activism is a joke.
Good job!
I'll just leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v0dYQ9t5WU
Tom Nicholas is really great in this piece. SLRPNK link
I'll just leave this here: https://web.sas.upenn.edu/pcssm/commentary/public-disapproval-of-disruptive-climate-change-protests/
They don't do it to become popular. They want to throw a wrench in the works to wake people up.
Who needs to be woken up? Who hasn't heard of climate change or Big Oil? Is defacing a public artifact going to sway Conservatives or Centrists?
Because at 86% of people saying that these acts either don't change their views on climate activism or that they negatively affect them, this seems like it's just "putting people to sleep."
Ok, what’s “the works” here then? The museum? Civil society? Art?
In this case just everydays course of affairs. Generally, the disruption of the machine.